Before I move it, and I will move it, to go back in the section earlier than that, on proposed subsection 380.2(3), this is a question to Ms. Kane. It's about the ability of the court to vary one of these prohibition orders or restrictive orders. It's not clear on the face of it. It talks about a variance, so that would mean a variance up or a variance down. For example, if a person was prohibited from participating in sales of stolen bicycles, or just bicycles, or whatever the currency of the fraud was, for a period of three years, I take it from the wording here that the original court or a successor court could vary that up or down.
My question is a double-pronged question. That essentially becomes a variation in the sentence, as I see it. Is that appropriate? I could see why you might shrink the prohibition period, but is that appropriate? Secondly, can the prohibition period extend out beyond the sentence period? If it does, does that prohibition period actually become a part of the sentence? When does the sentence end?